74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 12:26 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I fins it more than interesting that now even Tol is quoted - you probably don't know (about) him and his works, miniTAX? Laughing
Of course I know Tol since I took my quote from the BBC.
You wouldn't expect the BBC or any Britain media to interview a true skeptics would you ?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 12:36 pm
okie wrote:
MiniTAX, thank you for your very informed and credible input into this thread. What is your profession or scientific training as pertains to this subject, if I can be nosy?
I am a French engineer an have PhD in theoretical Physics and my thesis was about ... supercritical CO2 (but nothing to do with climatology).
I spent more than five years doing computer modelling for electronics industry. What's quite funny is most of my industry collegues, friends and alumni don't believe in Anthropic GW and most of my academia friends & collegues believe in it. Go wonder .
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 12:41 pm
High Seas wrote:
MiniTax - why argue? The Romans were brief: mundus vult decipi.
I couldn't care less people accept to be deceived. But here, we are talking about legislations based on bad science which affects my life and the life of my family, not to say our country's competitivity.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 12:44 pm
miniTAX wrote:

Of course I know Tol since I took my quote from the BBC.
You wouldn't expect the BBC or any Britain media to interview a true skeptics would you ?[/quote]

Well, he has really a big Irish humour, isn't it?
And when you compare his appearance with that of Stern ... Laughing
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 01:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Well, he has really a big Irish humour, isn't it?
And when you compare his appearance with that of Stern ... Laughing

http://images.forum-auto.com/images/perso/1/benny95.gif ahhhh, he must have been friend for too long with German punks (the punkiest in the world being in Berlin).

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/richard_tol.jpg
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:02 pm
Seems, I mistunderstood your "of course I know" then a bit :wink:

(He gave lectures at the Union's academy in Hamburg, and I heard some of those there .... plus had some nice talks in the beer cellar there.)
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 02:13 pm
Walter - for heaven's sake, MiniTax never said he knows Prof. Tol personally!

Besides, mathematicians do, by and large, look like the professor <G>

http://www.mmcchicago.org/dinners00-01/Math_t~1.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 03:55 pm
miniTAX wrote:
okie wrote:
MiniTAX, thank you for your very informed and credible input into this thread. What is your profession or scientific training as pertains to this subject, if I can be nosy?
I am a French engineer an have PhD in theoretical Physics and my thesis was about ... supercritical CO2 (but nothing to do with climatology).
I spent more than five years doing computer modelling for electronics industry. What's quite funny is most of my industry collegues, friends and alumni don't believe in Anthropic GW and most of my academia friends & collegues believe in it. Go wonder .


Thanks. Your observation of beliefs of industry folks vs those of academia is interesting. I saw the same phenomena in geology. Academia served a useful purpose to form a groundwork or foundation for further progress, but geologists and geophysisists practicing their trade generally were far ahead of and more realistically and practically grounded than those in the academic world. There were a few folks around in academia that were sound and realistic, but often the best were those that also had worked in industry, in my opinion. Obviously, academia is crucial to any science, but if not for real world application and data feedback from the real world, I think it can stagnate into useless pursuits and bad science.

In regard to "computer modeling," how often does it work, or how often is it correctly applied in the scientific world, in your opinion?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Feb, 2007 04:28 pm
okie wrote:
In regard to "computer modeling," how often does it work, or how often is it correctly applied in the scientific world, in your opinion?
Mechanical or physical modelling of very restricted systems easily testable and tested (combustion chamber, atom collision, plane wings,...) are very usefull and used extensively in industry.

Modelling complex systems not fully understood, with scarce or imprecise data, not testable or testable only on huge timescales, such as crash tests, human panic reaction, pharmaceutical effects of a drug, biological interactions, not to say entire biological systems is just academical conjectural exercices.

Modelling climate even on a 6 month timescale is BS, for now and forever. You can dress a pig with fancy clothes (in climate, they call it principal component, multivariate proxies, statistical analysis, wavelet data inference, probability density functions or the likes), you won't extract good manners from it.
Don't feel obliged to believe me. I'm not a meteorologist after all. Just read Prof Tennekes for starters.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 05:24 am
minitax/okie

this from today's NewScientist

Quote:
The IPCC's efforts are creating a bedrock of scientific certainty, but dont expect this to silence the sceptics. With one or two exceptions, they are masters of spin rather than science. They have no alternative narrative for the state of the climate, and merely hop from one perceived uncertainty to the next: cosmic rays or little ice ages, urban heat islands or the social pathology of climate scientists


Steve (BSc Materials Science/Metallurgy)

minitax...A climatologist friend of mine is convinced the atom smashers at CERN and FermiLab are the biggest waste of money ever. They will never confirm the Higgs boson because his study of paleoclimatology has demonstrated to his satisfaction that the holy grail of a Unified field theory is a non-starter. He might be right, but should I take him seriously?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 11:10 am
Steve,
To give you just one example how the New Scientist (I'd rather call them the New Cultist) is absurdly misleading, here is what you can read from them
"Scientists see it [climate change] in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more."

"Never as warm for a millenium or more", it says hummm ??
Now read the 2 feb 2007 Summary (use Google) and tell me what the IPCC says about current temperature compared to the past?

Do you still trust in the New Scientist ?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 11:33 am
miniTAX wrote:
Steve,
To give you just one example how the New Scientist (I'd rather call them the New Cultist) is absurdly misleading, here is what you can read from them
"Scientists see it [climate change] in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in ice cores. These reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more."

"Never as warm for a millenium or more", it says hummm ??
Now read the 2 feb 2007 Summary (use Google) and tell me what the IPCC says about current temperature compared to the past?

Do you still trust in the New Scientist ?
Question fourth IPCC report says 1300 years. What are you talking about?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 01:54 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
Question fourth IPCC report says 1300 years. What are you talking about?
No it hasn't, certainly not in the New Scientist's terms. Read the report pls.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 02:10 pm
please read this

IPCC report 2/2/07 page 10

Quote:
"average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in the past 1300 years."


have you read this minitax?
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 05:57 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
have you read this minitax?
Yes I have. The Summary 2007 says "likely", meaning the probability is > 60% (probability 50% being "it may or it may not"). I don't remember the New Scientist has noted any DOUBT in the science, has mentioned any probability or the way this probability is calculated or has used any conditional for verbs. If there is uncertainty and you don't report it, we call it lying by omission.

Further nitpicking sort of, if you read the Second Draft which is the working document leading to the Summary, you'll see that the authors insisted on huge uncertainties on temperatures prior to 1700 (SD-6.2 et SD-6.6) because on the scarcity of data (see SR6 map) and uncertainty in calibration, leading to an error margin of +- 0,5°C, that is more than twice one sigma of the decadal averaged temperature.

You have an "unprecedented" increase of 0,6°C over the last century, that you tried to compare to past temperatures affected by a +-0,5°C error margin. A little bit as if you try to compare today's 6°C to yesterday's temperature that you know was between 0 and 10°C.
I don't know how and why the IPCC has decided to resume these facts with the sentence "likely warmest for 1300 years" but in engineering, we call it at best shoddy science, at worse black magic.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Feb, 2007 08:54 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
minitax/okie

this from today's NewScientist

Quote:
The IPCC's efforts are creating a bedrock of scientific certainty, but dont expect this to silence the sceptics. With one or two exceptions, they are masters of spin rather than science. They have no alternative narrative for the state of the climate, and merely hop from one perceived uncertainty to the next: cosmic rays or little ice ages, urban heat islands or the social pathology of climate scientists


Steve (BSc Materials Science/Metallurgy)


"bedrock of scientific certainty?"

Steve, I think MiniTAX has adequately addressed that proclamation.

I think it is more like building a house on "shifting sands of scientific certainty" than on bedrock. I would remind you that sand is in fact made of rock, but it is a little here and a little there, and how it all fits together is not well established at this point.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 06:29 am
IPCC summary report footnote page 4

Quote:
In this Summary for Policymakers, the following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrance, Extremely likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, , More likely than not > 50%[/b], Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely <10%, Extremely unlikely <5%.


I've bolded the relevant figures.

Why would the New Scientist, when quoting from the IPCC summary use different terminology from the report itself?

More likely than not means >50% not probability 0.5, and likely means >66% not as you said probability 0.6.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 08:50 am
As an aside, and to reassure the doomsday-ers on the thread that they may not have to starve as a result of global warming, there are apparently some folks out there thinking ahead:

But seriously, since the most staunch doomsday-ers don't seem concerned enough to significantly alter their own lifestyles, and given the improbability that any current efforts are going to significantly reverse whatever global warming is occuring, I think the most practical use of human ingenuity, imagination, treasure, and activity is to work on maintaining or even enhancing quality of life in an inevitably changing climate. A seed vault isn't a bad idea.

'Doomsday vault' to resist global warming effectsFeb 08 7:08 PM US/Eastern - AFP

An Arctic "doomsday vault" aimed at providing mankind with food in case of a global catastrophe will be designed to sustain the effects of climate change, the project's builders said as they unveiled the architectural plans.

The top-security repository, carved into the permafrost of a mountain in the remote Svalbard archipelago near the North Pole, will preserve some three million batches of seeds from all known varieties of the planet's crops.

The hope is that the vault will make it possible to re-establish crops obliterated by major disasters.

"We have taken into consideration the (outside) temperature rising and have located the facility so far inside the rock that it will be in permafrost and won't be affected" by the outside temperature, Magnus Bredeli Tveiten, project manager at Norway's Directorate of Public Construction and Property, told AFP.

Construction on the seed bank, also dubbed the "Noah's Ark of food", will begin in March.

The seed samples, such as wheat and potatoes, will be stored in two chambers located deep inside a mountain, accessed by a 120-meter (395-foot) tunnel. The tunnel and vaults will be excavated by boring and blasting techniques and the rock walls sprayed with concrete.

The seeds will be maintained at a temperature of minus 18 degrees Celsius (minus 0.4 Fahrenheit).

The vault is situated about 130 meters (426 feet) above current sea level. It would not flood if Greenland's ice sheet melts, which some estimate would increase sea levels by seven meters (23 feet).

It is also expected to be safe if the ices of Antarctica completely melt, which experts say could increase sea levels by 61 meters (200 feet).

The entry to the vault, which will shoot out of the mountainside, will be a narrow triangular portal made of cement and steel, illuminated with artwork that changes according to the Arctic light.

In summer, "in the midnight sun, it will look like a large diamond," said Tveiten. In winter, when the sun does not rise above the horizon, "it will glow into the darkness," he added.

Behind the airlock door, each chamber will measure 375 square meters (4,036 square feet). Corrugated plastic boxes the size of moving boxes will sit on rows of metal shelves.

Each box will contain about 400 samples in envelopes made of polyethelene, and each sample will contain around 500 seeds.

The samples will be stored in watertight foil packages to act as a barrier against moisture should a power failure disable refrigeration systems.

Construction on the three-million-dollar (2.3-million-euro) vault is due to finish in September. It will officially open in late winter 2008.

The design of the structure is "simple, it's functional, it runs by itself. We can't have a better design," Cary Fowler, executive director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the brains behind the vault, told AFP.

"It makes use of the natural cold. It's planned with the climate change factor taken into consideration and it will be frozen 200 years from now. And even in the worst case scenario, if the temperature rises it will still be safe," he said.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/070209000818.zc6pxovb.html
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 09:32 am
Thanks for posting that, Foxy. It shows that even though you don't believe in man's impact on the environment and you're unwilling to change your lifestyle, you do worry about the survival of mankind.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Feb, 2007 09:34 am
They started to work on that already last year (BBC report).

Our state's "forest gen database" (one of the largest in the world) gave them all their 'doublettes' last autumn.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 02:56:37